TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the Service Tax liability which are individuals, thus, the Service Tax liability is not sustainable. The demand of Service Tax against the appellants is not sustainable as the appellants are entitled to benefit of N/N. 06/2005-ST dt. 01.03.2005 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/60060-60064/2016, ST/60066-60069/2016, ST/60137 & 60142-60149/2016 - A/61372-61389/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 18-7-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Sudeep Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. V. Gupta, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein the demand of Service Tax has been confirmed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants are before us. 4. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 5. We find that the identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Anil Saini and Others Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I and the same has been disposed of by this Tribunal vide Final Order No.61723-61729/2016 dt. 05.12.2016 wherein this Tribunal as observed as under:- 3. After hearing both the sides, considering the fact that the issue has already been dealt by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Nasik Vs. Deoram Vishrambhai Patel reported in 2015 (40) STR 1146 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue that needs to be decided in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax New York Life Insurance co. Ltd., Oriental bank of Commerce, Axis Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Standar Life Insurance Ltd. are also entered into by the appellants in their individual capacity, as per SCN also, all four co-owners have obtained separate Registration Certificate on 10.04.2012 and all the four co-owners individually paid their service tax liability along with interest on 14.02.2012. Thus, the ownership of the Property and providing of taxable renting of immovable Property by the four appellants in this case is in their individual capacity and, therefore, their tax liability should have been determined by considering their individual rental receipts and not collective one. From the various lease agreements made with abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) above. However, in the Financial Year 2009-10 and 2010-22, the receipt off rent by each appellant exceeded the statutory exemption limit of ₹ 10 lakhs and the appellants have paid service tax along with interest on their own before receipt of SCN. This fact is not disputed by the department also and no additional tax liability has been worked out for the said period in OIO. 6.4 Since the appellants were individually liable to pay service tax and eligible for the exemption under general exemption Notification 6/2005-S.T., dated 1.03.2005 during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09, no service tax was payable during the said period. Hence, the question of penalty under Section 76 for the said period does not arise. For the subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n concerned before service of notice on him and informed the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing. Further in Explanation 2 of the said sub section it is also clearly provided that no penalty under any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be imposed in respect of payment of service tax under this sub-section and interest thereon. Hence, in fact no SCN was required to be issued in this case for recovery of service tax and imposition of penalty and even when it has been issued, no penalty under Section 76 or 78 is imposable in this case for the period 2009-10 and 2010-11. 9. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the first appellate authority, the conclusion arrived at is very correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
